Arnold White, C.J.

1. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether Wallis J.s finding on the question of estoppel is right.

2. The circumstances in which the question has arisen are these:--

On the 12th December 1904 there was an agreement (Exhibit B) between the plaintiff and the defendants under which the plaintiff leased to the defendants his interest in a certain business for an amount which had been fixed by the arbitrators. On the same date, for the consideration specified in, Exhibit B the defendants executed in the plaintiffs favor a promissory note for Rs. 30,000 payable by monthly instalments up to April 1906.

3. In August 1906 the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants in which he asked that the release (Exhibit B) should be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. He declined to accept instalments under the pronote after April 1906. Fourteen instalments have not been paid. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed. On appeal the appellate Court declined to set aside the release but held the plaintiff was entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 1,400 odd with which, he ought to have been credited on the taking of the account,